Or, "How not to build a data warehouse."

On November 5, 2009, an Army psychiatrist stationed at Fort Hood, Texas shot and killed 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian Defense Department employee while wounding 29 others. US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born son of two Palestinian immigrants, reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!”—“God is great!”—before launching his 10-minute shooting rampage at the Soldier Readiness Center. The shooting—the worst ever on an American military base—occurred as Hasan was facing imminent deployment to Afghanistan. A civilian police officer shot Hasan and placed him under arrest.

In the investigation that followed, the FBI and Defense Department investigators found that Hasan had been communicating with Anwar al-Aulaqi (sometimes spelled "al-Awlaki"), an American radical Islamic cleric living in Yemen. In the process of reviewing the evidence, investigators found that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces in San Diego and Washington, DC had been aware of Hasan’s interactions with Aulaqi for over 11 months before the attack. Yet Hasan had never even been interviewed about his connection with the imam who would later be tied to “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and to attempts to bomb US bound cargo planes with explosives packed in laser printer cartridges. (al-Aulaqi would later be killed by a US drone strike in Yemen.)

As federal officials looked into whether they had somehow missed leads that might have prevented the shooting, they found that the information technology at the heart of the FBI’s efforts to prevent terrorist attacks was fractured, overburdened, and running on aging and underpowered hardware.

Two weeks ago—coincidentally, just hours before another gunman would kill 12 and wound many more in Aurora, Colorado—an FBI independent commission led by former FBI director and federal judge William H. Webster filed its final report on the FBI’s performance leading up to the Fort Hood shooting. That report found no evidence the FBI's data would have set off alarms that Hasan was planning to kill fellow soldiers; he received no explicit instructions from al-Aulaqi and never mentioned his plans. But the report strongly implies that FBI IT systems and the bureau’s poor state of information sharing with other agencies played a role in the failure to take a harder look at Hasan.

Much has been made of government's power to survey citizens using technologies such as packet capture and deep packet inspection. Even used in a limited fashion, these technologies can gather massive amounts of data on the online behaviors of individuals, and when taken together they can create an electronic profile of people's lives. That potential—and concerns about its abuse—have driven privacy advocates to push for the repeal or alteration of laws such as the PATRIOT Act.

At the same time, US law enforcement and intelligence agencies have struggled over the past decade to take all of this information and put it to use. The poor search capabilities of the FBI's software, inadequate user training, and the fragmented nature of the organization's intelligence databases all meant there was no way for anyone involved in the investigation to have a complete picture of what was going on with Hasan.

While much has changed since November of 2009, the FBI’s intelligence analysis and sharing systems remain a work in progress at best—and there's no telling what other potential threats may have gone unnoticed.

Packet captured

Nidal Hasan in a US Army photo after his promotion to major.

Hasan first drew the interest of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in the FBI’s San Diego field office back in December of 2008, while he was a captain assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and he attempted to make contact with Aulaqi via a message form on Aulaqi’s personal website.

The San Diego JTTF—a team made up of FBI agents and analysts, along with officers from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)— had been investigating Aulaqi since the late 1990s, when he was an increasingly radical imam at a San Diego mosque. As part of that investigation, the FBI monitored his electronic communications under a secret warrant, intercepting traffic to his personal webpage, his e-mails sent to a Yahoo webmail account, and his instant messages.

While the tools to do this could be primitive at the time, they did work. Back in 1997, the FBI began intercepting e-mails and other network traffic with the custom tool "Carnivore" (later given the bland name "DCS-1000" after copious criticism), a Windows-based packet sniffer that could capture specific types of communications as part of warranted surveillance. (In 2005, the FBI dropped its bespoke sniffer and switched to commercial deep packet inspection technology, which by then offered better features and performance.)

So when Hasan visited Aulaqi's website in 2008 and used its "Contact the Sheik" page to send Aulaqi a message, he identified himself with his name and his own AOL e-mail address. The FBI’s surveillance software scooped it up and noted Hasan's IP address, which resolved to Reston, Virginia:

Hasan's first message to al-Aulaqi, through his website.

Hasan’s message then entered an FBI database called the Data Warehousing Service (DWS), a database originally designed when the FBI was still using Carnivore. The FBI's Special Technologies and Applications section had designed DWS in 2001, but it was misnamed. DWS wasn’t a data warehouse per se but instead was designed as a transactional database for storing intercepted communications captured in criminal investigations—not for doing analysis on large data sets.

DWS wasn’t the only system used for handling surveillance data, though. In 2002, the Bureau had launched the Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), a separate system for handling foreign intelligence surveillance. The goal of EDMS was to help language analysts translate and annotate electronic content ranging from audio (collected from wiretaps and telephone monitoring) to intercepted e-mail and seized electronic media.

At the time that Hasan’s message ended up in the hands of the San Diego JTTF, the two systems were in turmoil. In February 2009, the systems were merged under a single user interface called DWS-EDMS as part of an effort to improve and consolidate surveillance data access—combining both criminal investigations and intelligence activities.

But with the Global War on Terror in full swing, DWS and EDMS had hit the wall—neither was really intended to handle the volume of surveillance that began rolling in to support counterterrorism investigations.

66 Reader Comments

Great article, but it also highlights why I always shake my head when people are screaming about the government tracking everything and are poised for you to say one wrong thing. Most IT solutions the government has is a mess or extremely out dated. It's sad that bureaucracy gets in the way of making things more efficient and reliable. I just feel that if you're going to have people do something, give them the tools to do it right.

In re my post above, this is a case that smacks of why a "Second Life" feed of data would be beneficial. Imagine a "Third Life" based upon a "Second Life" except that in a "Third Life" one communicates with others via "chats" which are the equivalents of actual chats or phone calls. In addition, one could interact with others with the equivalents of "virtual Twitters" and "virtual Facebooks" coupled with "virtual forums." If one carried a "virtual cellphone", one could be "tracked" just as in the real world.

In other words, if the agencies in question cannot readily provide classified data to assist in an effort to provide an open-source "leap frog" solution, then a source of fake data would need to be generated in a similar manner to that generated in the "real world."

Motivate the participants in both good and evil ways. Let there be "netizens" in the "Third Life" that are normal folks, some that are criminals, and some that are law enforcement. Stage some contests with goals in mind that would force interaction between the three groups. Bribery, corruption, criminality, terrorism, heroics, sleuthing, entrepreneurship, transport, housing and the likes, all in a "virtual" setting that is small, medium, large, or even global in scale.

Given a significant source of fake or virtual data roughly resembling that in the real world, coupled with open-source development and the insane improvements in end-user interfaces as manifested by tablets and phones, an awesome system beneficial to all should be possible.

In all likelihood one cannot be a prophet in one's hometown. I suspect that my own "hometown", that is the United States, will not likely even attempt to implement the aforementioned ideas. However, in a predictable twist of irony, I'll bet that governments like China will attempt to do so. As they co-opted Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave" book, making it the second most read in China, so too will they co-opt ideas like these.

It would be beneficial to all concerned to watch the first eight (8) minutes or so of episode 1 of HBO's "The Newsroom" to understand my frustrations when I proposed ideas such as these, for I can remember when my nation would actually attempt an undertaking such as this.

Any of you thought that perhaps it would be more efficient to kinda avoid situations where you piss off people enough that they want you dead at any cost?

Would be a lot cheaper and safer than making stasi 2.0

When the "situation" is living in a society that claims to protect personal freedoms, and for the most part, succeeds, I choose to not avoid that. Even if the US weren't the "World Police" (and I personally do think we should not be) there would be condemnation of our way of life by other groups, which may lead to acts of terrorism. Did we kick the hornets nest? Probably -- but the sentiment of the hive existed beforehand.

edit: missed a negative that change the meaning quite a bit.

Society claims a lot. At least the politicians do. What is going on in reality has nothing to do with protecting any freedom (except perhaps for companies to flees their customers thanks to lobbying efforts).

Our way of life is bullshit. People don't give a fuck about how you live your life as long as you leave them alone. Given a choice most people even if they want to do terrorist action would concentrate on their own home. So if US and rest of west stopped putting their fat fingers where they do not belong people would have no reason to go crazy.

Sure there are local crazies but that has always been the case and it's not worth to turn the society in to advanced version of 1984 just for those few.

Great article, but it also highlights why I always shake my head when people are screaming about the government tracking everything and are poised for you to say one wrong thing. Most IT solutions the government has is a mess or extremely out dated. It's sad that bureaucracy gets in the way of making things more efficient and reliable. I just feel that if you're going to have people do something, give them the tools to do it right.

This. Anytime I hear about secret government conspiracies I know I've run into someone who has had no professional interaction with actual government.

Anyways, they should install Google Search Appliance to make stuff easier to search.

This is what I was thinking. If not a Google Search Appliance, then certainly hiring Google to design and implement a system that gives them what they need sounds like a good idea. And this is what our tax dollars should be paying for, not the maintenance and extension of these ad hoc dinosaurs that are proven to not work.

This really seems to shoot down the Fox News promoted story that he was a known problem and that they did not deal with him for political correctness reasons.

Except he was a known problem, to his superiors, classmates and other officers he served with. Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was "a war against Islam."Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks.Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.So, tell me again how he was not a known problem, or that the military did not deal with him because of their PC outreach program to Muslims?

In hindsight a lot of things seem obvious. Lots of soldiers have problems with policy, and conflicts with religion, and that goes for Christian and other religious soldiers as well. There is a line between those kinds of conflict and being willing to actively work against the military you serve in, or in a worst case, shoot your fellow soldiers. This article makes it pretty clear that the largest failure was a technological one, not a political correctness one.

Sure they could have taken more interest in him, but his struggles were not unique. But the FBI had everything needed to know he was on the road to this but their own issues kept them from calling it out.

A presentation he gave justifying suicide bombing and stating that Islamic law trumps the Constitution, (a document as an officer he swore to uphold) is not obvious that he should not have been in the service at the minimum? Stevie wonder could have seen trouble brewing from him on the horizon just from the items I posted. I could have filled this forum with other more telling and compelling actions that he committed later in his career, but these happened earlier and he should have been rooted out for these.

This really seems to shoot down the Fox News promoted story that he was a known problem and that they did not deal with him for political correctness reasons.

Except he was a known problem, to his superiors, classmates and other officers he served with. Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was "a war against Islam."Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks.Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.So, tell me again how he was not a known problem, or that the military did not deal with him because of their PC outreach program to Muslims?

In hindsight a lot of things seem obvious. Lots of soldiers have problems with policy, and conflicts with religion, and that goes for Christian and other religious soldiers as well. There is a line between those kinds of conflict and being willing to actively work against the military you serve in, or in a worst case, shoot your fellow soldiers. This article makes it pretty clear that the largest failure was a technological one, not a political correctness one.

Sure they could have taken more interest in him, but his struggles were not unique. But the FBI had everything needed to know he was on the road to this but their own issues kept them from calling it out.

A presentation he gave justifying suicide bombing and stating that Islamic law trumps the Constitution, (a document as an officer he swore to uphold) is not obvious that he should not have been in the service at the minimum? Stevie wonder could have seen trouble brewing from him on the horizon just from the items I posted. I could have filled this forum with other more telling and compelling actions that he committed later in his career, but these happened earlier and he should have been rooted out for these.

That said, the failure as demonstrated by this article, was mostly that of information corrolation. Individual pieces were not put together to paint the broader picture needed. Singular actions are rarely enough evidence to ruin a career.

This really seems to shoot down the Fox News promoted story that he was a known problem and that they did not deal with him for political correctness reasons.

Except he was a known problem, to his superiors, classmates and other officers he served with. Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was "a war against Islam."Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks.Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.So, tell me again how he was not a known problem, or that the military did not deal with him because of their PC outreach program to Muslims?

In hindsight a lot of things seem obvious. Lots of soldiers have problems with policy, and conflicts with religion, and that goes for Christian and other religious soldiers as well. There is a line between those kinds of conflict and being willing to actively work against the military you serve in, or in a worst case, shoot your fellow soldiers. This article makes it pretty clear that the largest failure was a technological one, not a political correctness one.

Sure they could have taken more interest in him, but his struggles were not unique. But the FBI had everything needed to know he was on the road to this but their own issues kept them from calling it out.

A presentation he gave justifying suicide bombing and stating that Islamic law trumps the Constitution, (a document as an officer he swore to uphold) is not obvious that he should not have been in the service at the minimum? Stevie wonder could have seen trouble brewing from him on the horizon just from the items I posted. I could have filled this forum with other more telling and compelling actions that he committed later in his career, but these happened earlier and he should have been rooted out for these.

That said, the failure as demonstrated by this article, was mostly that of information corrolation. Individual pieces were not put together to paint the broader picture needed. Singular actions are rarely enough evidence to ruin a career.

There was more than one singular action in his personnel file though. One should have been enough for at leaast a reprimand but all taken to ether should have rise more than one red flag. But, his superiors chose to ignore all the warning signs for Muslim PC crap.

This really seems to shoot down the Fox News promoted story that he was a known problem and that they did not deal with him for political correctness reasons.

Except he was a known problem, to his superiors, classmates and other officers he served with. Dr. Val Finnell told The Associated Press that he and other classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program with Hasan at the Uniformed Services University had complained about his comments, including that the war on terror was "a war against Islam."Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks.Other classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college said they, too, had complained to superiors about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.So, tell me again how he was not a known problem, or that the military did not deal with him because of their PC outreach program to Muslims?

In hindsight a lot of things seem obvious. Lots of soldiers have problems with policy, and conflicts with religion, and that goes for Christian and other religious soldiers as well. There is a line between those kinds of conflict and being willing to actively work against the military you serve in, or in a worst case, shoot your fellow soldiers. This article makes it pretty clear that the largest failure was a technological one, not a political correctness one.

Sure they could have taken more interest in him, but his struggles were not unique. But the FBI had everything needed to know he was on the road to this but their own issues kept them from calling it out.

A presentation he gave justifying suicide bombing and stating that Islamic law trumps the Constitution, (a document as an officer he swore to uphold) is not obvious that he should not have been in the service at the minimum? Stevie wonder could have seen trouble brewing from him on the horizon just from the items I posted. I could have filled this forum with other more telling and compelling actions that he committed later in his career, but these happened earlier and he should have been rooted out for these.

That said, the failure as demonstrated by this article, was mostly that of information corrolation. Individual pieces were not put together to paint the broader picture needed. Singular actions are rarely enough evidence to ruin a career.

There was more than one singular action in his personnel file though. One should have been enough for at leaast a reprimand but all taken to ether should have rise more than one red flag. But, his superiors chose to ignore all the warning signs for Muslim PC crap.

Did you actually read this article? Or are you just on some sort of Muslim witchhunt?

BTW, I've known many soldiers who believe they are in a Christian army and that in the middle east they are in a holy war. Should they also be removed? Personally, I say yes, but then I'd remove any extremist from a position that puts them in charge of military grade weaponry.

To date though, holding extreme views has never been a standard for removing someone from service. The army contains extremists of all stripes, religious, political and racial. Unlike police, in most positions being unbiased isn't really part of their job. If we are going to be ok with the extremists of one type, we have to be equally ok with the extremists of other types.

Anyways, they should install Google Search Appliance to make stuff easier to search.

This is what I was thinking. If not a Google Search Appliance, then certainly hiring Google to design and implement a system that gives them what they need sounds like a good idea. And this is what our tax dollars should be paying for, not the maintenance and extension of these ad hoc dinosaurs that are proven to not work.

Can you imagine if Google employees put their own back doors in the database GUI and had links that were "relative" to what they were searching for?

"I see you're searching for nationalist data in Pune, India; perhaps this is relevant to what you're searching for?"

Am I the only one that is more concerned with government surveillance than terrorism? Giving up 100% of your freedom to communicate without government watchers to possibly mitigate extremely rare attacks seems about as un-American as one can get.

After reading the article, I am no longer concerned that risk can actually materialize in a way that significantly impacts our freedoms. Of course it may not do much for controlling terrorism either, but that's the same trade-off we have if they do nothing at all. I want them to at least try to spot the bad apples, even if they fail a lot.

I've been in Federal government IT for 36 years in 3 different Departments. None of this is a new "thing". Budgets are always tight. Over the past 5 to 6 years we saw a doubling in customers supported with static staffing numbers (2 years) follow by a cut in IT staff of 75% (the following 3 - 4 years).

Meanwhile we have run away spending on "events" outside of the ConUS and increasing pressures on already skin-and-bones operations.

I don't disagree that the deficit is at a breaking point but we can't have it both ways. If we want to cut our debt, we can't increase budgets.

Something has to give and perhaps empire building should be a first place to look at large cuts.

In re my post above, this is a case that smacks of why a "Second Life" feed of data would be beneficial. Imagine a "Third Life" based upon a "Second Life" except that in a "Third Life" one communicates with others via "chats" which are the equivalents of actual chats or phone calls. In addition, one could interact with others with the equivalents of "virtual Twitters" and "virtual Facebooks" coupled with "virtual forums." If one carried a "virtual cellphone", one could be "tracked" just as in the real world.

In other words, if the agencies in question cannot readily provide classified data to assist in an effort to provide an open-source "leap frog" solution, then a source of fake data would need to be generated in a similar manner to that generated in the "real world."

Motivate the participants in both good and evil ways. Let there be "netizens" in the "Third Life" that are normal folks, some that are criminals, and some that are law enforcement. Stage some contests with goals in mind that would force interaction between the three groups. Bribery, corruption, criminality, terrorism, heroics, sleuthing, entrepreneurship, transport, housing and the likes, all in a "virtual" setting that is small, medium, large, or even global in scale.

Given a significant source of fake or virtual data roughly resembling that in the real world, coupled with open-source development and the insane improvements in end-user interfaces as manifested by tablets and phones, an awesome system beneficial to all should be possible.

In all likelihood one cannot be a prophet in one's hometown. I suspect that my own "hometown", that is the United States, will not likely even attempt to implement the aforementioned ideas. However, in a predictable twist of irony, I'll bet that governments like China will attempt to do so. As they co-opted Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave" book, making it the second most read in China, so too will they co-opt ideas like these.

It would be beneficial to all concerned to watch the first eight (8) minutes or so of episode 1 of HBO's "The Newsroom" to understand my frustrations when I proposed ideas such as these, for I can remember when my nation would actually attempt an undertaking such as this.

There was more than one singular action in his personnel file though. One should have been enough for at leaast a reprimand but all taken to ether should have rise more than one red flag. But, his superiors chose to ignore all the warning signs for Muslim PC crap.

OF course, hindsight is 20/20. Knowing what we know now, it's obvious that he should have been removed for any number of reasons. Back at that time, with only fragmented information to go on and no egregious problems, they probably made the best decision with the information they DID have available. Sadly the wrong decision, but it's very easy to cast stones now...

There was more than one singular action in his personnel file though. One should have been enough for at leaast a reprimand but all taken to ether should have rise more than one red flag. But, his superiors chose to ignore all the warning signs for Muslim PC crap.

OF course, hindsight is 20/20. Knowing what we know now, it's obvious that he should have been removed for any number of reasons. Back at that time, with only fragmented information to go on and no egregious problems, they probably made the best decision with the information they DID have available. Sadly the wrong decision, but it's very easy to cast stones now...

Fragmented? How was the information on him fragmented? It is not like there was 10 different personnel files on him all containing different information, there was not. There was one file at DOD all containing the same info which his superiors chose to ignore as to not inflame the Muslim community. But it is ok if a Muslim kills American serviceman in your book, and then say "well in hindsight" bull shit, they dropped the ball as they did not want to offend anyone and make their pc outreach program look like it was, a worthless, pos that does not function. So keep building mosques on military bases, keep ignoring warning signs form Muslims in the service, keep ignoring statements made by Muslims in the service that Sharai law trumps the Constitution, and lets see how many more Americans have to die before change is enacted.

There was more than one singular action in his personnel file though. One should have been enough for at leaast a reprimand but all taken to ether should have rise more than one red flag. But, his superiors chose to ignore all the warning signs for Muslim PC crap.

OF course, hindsight is 20/20. Knowing what we know now, it's obvious that he should have been removed for any number of reasons. Back at that time, with only fragmented information to go on and no egregious problems, they probably made the best decision with the information they DID have available. Sadly the wrong decision, but it's very easy to cast stones now...

Fragmented? How was the information on him fragmented? It is not like there was 10 different personnel files on him all containing different information, there was not. There was one file at DOD all containing the same info which his superiors chose to ignore as to not inflame the Muslim community. But it is ok if a Muslim kills American serviceman in your book, and then say "well in hindsight" bull shit, they dropped the ball as they did not want to offend anyone and make their pc outreach program look like it was, a worthless, pos that does not function. So keep building mosques on military bases, keep ignoring warning signs form Muslims in the service, keep ignoring statements made by Muslims in the service that Sharai law trumps the Constitution, and lets see how many more Americans have to die before change is enacted.

There was more than one singular action in his personnel file though. One should have been enough for at leaast a reprimand but all taken to ether should have rise more than one red flag. But, his superiors chose to ignore all the warning signs for Muslim PC crap.

OF course, hindsight is 20/20. Knowing what we know now, it's obvious that he should have been removed for any number of reasons. Back at that time, with only fragmented information to go on and no egregious problems, they probably made the best decision with the information they DID have available. Sadly the wrong decision, but it's very easy to cast stones now...

Fragmented? How was the information on him fragmented? It is not like there was 10 different personnel files on him all containing different information, there was not. There was one file at DOD all containing the same info which his superiors chose to ignore as to not inflame the Muslim community. But it is ok if a Muslim kills American serviceman in your book, and then say "well in hindsight" bull shit, they dropped the ball as they did not want to offend anyone and make their pc outreach program look like it was, a worthless, pos that does not function. So keep building mosques on military bases, keep ignoring warning signs form Muslims in the service, keep ignoring statements made by Muslims in the service that Sharai law trumps the Constitution, and lets see how many more Americans have to die before change is enacted.

You... didn't read the article at all, did you?

I know! Thats why I stopped replying! It is stunning to me that in the very thread attached to an article explaining what really happened someone is in here claiming something that essentially was debunked by the article he is obstensibly replying to!

I kind of feel bad for the Federal Government in the situation because it sounds like the real person who messed up was a Global Consulting Company that didn't think with the end in mind (Think Data Growth). Like corporations, the federal government also can pay experts whom don't deliver what they had promised.

Well, it seems that the FBI doesn't use vacuum-tube computers and punch-cards, so that's good I guess.The fact that they have deployed the widest dragnet they could, while having only the smallest boat to actually get the fish, indicates a level a clulessness that is quite staggering.

ClownRazer wrote:

AxMi-24 wrote:

Any of you thought that perhaps it would be more efficient to kinda avoid situations where you piss off people enough that they want you dead at any cost?

Would be a lot cheaper and safer than making stasi 2.0

When the "situation" is living in a society that claims to protect personal freedoms, and for the most part, succeeds, I choose to not avoid that.

Please, don't repeat that "they hate us for our freedom" bullshit. People of Switzerland are at least as free as you, as rich as you, as xenophobic as you and they don't get similar problems... guess why?

ClownRazer wrote:

Even if the US weren't the "World Police" (and I personally do think we should not be) there would be condemnation of our way of life by other groups, which may lead to acts of terrorism. Did we kick the hornets nest? Probably -- but the sentiment of the hive existed beforehand.

Not true. Two bearded fanatics, ranting together in a cave, are not a danger... unless there is a very strong anti-US sentiment, shared by millions of people, and THEN the bearded fanatics start to become a real menace.

Xavin wrote:

Fanatics are irrational, we had just about the same frequency of terrorist attacks before 9/11 as after. They don't need a legitimate reason to hate us. This is about a technological problem anyway, no the politics of why he went nuts.

Well, I hope you're aware that the US fucking things up in the Middle-East, Central Asia and East-Africa did not begin in 2001?!

As a matter of fact, before you started to reshape the World in the 80's, exclusively to serve your economic short-term interests, terrorism against the US was simply nonexistent.

AxMi-24 suggestion is a good one: stop pissing people off, you'll see it'll work like magic. Stop turning brown children into bloody pulp for a change.

amadan wrote:

villanim wrote:

<blah blah muslim blah>

You... didn't read the article at all, did you?

Let's not get facts in the way of an good islamophobic rant, shall we?

As a matter of fact, before you started to reshape the World in the 80's, exclusively to serve your economic short-term interests, terrorism against the US was simply nonexistent.

Wow. So terrorism against the U.S. before the 80's didn't exist? Also, what is this reshaping the world in the 1980's crap? Love it or hate it, or somewhere in between, I see no fundamental discontinuity in the U.S. desire to influence world events, post WWII.

Just to be clear, I'm sure the Islamofascists would be significantly less overt in their aggressiveness were the U.S. to pull in its horns. However, their goals would not change, only their strategies and tactics.

In any case, I'm sure that the Sufi Muslims of Mali and churches of Nigeria and Kenya would be surprised that their aggressive moves toward reshaping the world to serve their "economic short-term interests" were the cause of these perfectly understandable attacks:

As a matter of fact, before you started to reshape the World in the 80's, exclusively to serve your economic short-term interests, terrorism against the US was simply nonexistent.

Wow. So terrorism against the U.S. before the 80's didn't exist? Also, what is this reshaping the world in the 1980's crap? Love it or hate it, or somewhere in between, I see no fundamental discontinuity in the U.S. desire to influence world events, post WWII.

Just to be clear, I'm sure the Islamofascists would be significantly less overt in their aggressiveness were the U.S. to pull in its horns. However, their goals would not change, only their strategies and tactics.

In any case, I'm sure that the Sufi Muslims of Mali and churches of Nigeria and Kenya would be surprised that their aggressive moves toward reshaping the world to serve their "economic short-term interests" were the cause of these perfectly understandable attacks:

Let's not get facts in the way of an good islamophobic rant, shall we?

Yes, let's not let facts get in the way.

Great job dodging his point. You did make the observation however that it extends prior to the 80's, it actually began with Nixon and Kissinger, who explicitly started taking sides in these conflicts and as a result cost the US the previous perception of neutrality.

But other than that, you missed his point. He did not ever state that terrorism did not happen. Or that there were no Muslim terrorists. Try again.

As a matter of fact, before you started to reshape the World in the 80's, exclusively to serve your economic short-term interests, terrorism against the US was simply nonexistent.

Wow. So terrorism against the U.S. before the 80's didn't exist? Also, what is this reshaping the world in the 1980's crap? Love it or hate it, or somewhere in between, I see no fundamental discontinuity in the U.S. desire to influence world events, post WWII.

Just to be clear, I'm sure the Islamofascists would be significantly less overt in their aggressiveness were the U.S. to pull in its horns. However, their goals would not change, only their strategies and tactics.

In any case, I'm sure that the Sufi Muslims of Mali and churches of Nigeria and Kenya would be surprised that their aggressive moves toward reshaping the world to serve their "economic short-term interests" were the cause of these perfectly understandable attacks:

Let's not get facts in the way of an good islamophobic rant, shall we?

Yes, let's not let facts get in the way.

Great job dodging his point. You did make the observation however that it extends prior to the 80's, it actually began with Nixon and Kissinger, who explicitly started taking sides in these conflicts and as a result cost the US the previous perception of neutrality.

But other than that, you missed his point. He did not ever state that terrorism did not happen. Or that there were no Muslim terrorists. Try again.

Um, my point is that his view is overly simplistic. Two of many sub-points

1) There are many factors contributing to an increase in terrorism against the U.S. I could list quite a few and I'm sure you or he could do likewise if you had open minds.

2) U.S. defending its interests is certainly one of these. However, when one pushes back, one can expect an aggressive response. That is no reason NOT to press one's interests.

3) Islamic terrorism has increased, in general.

4) These people have certain long-term goals. They don't change because of what the U.S. does, only the short-term goals and tactics do.

5) No matter who you are, if you get in their way they're going to react violently. It doesn't matter if you're a world power, a peaceful rival Islamic sect, or a defenseless church.

Quote:

But other than that, you missed his point

So, what was his point? It sounded like the U.S. pursing its interests in the world precipitated an increase in Islamofascist terrorism and by implication if only the U.S. were to change its ways we could avoid all that. Well, yeah, I agree that when one pushes back against one's enemies they won't like it and will act out. But the next implication seems to be that if U.S. didn't push back everything would, mostly, be OK. Which I emphatically do not agree with.

BTW, I had forgot to put you on my the list of people whose posts I don't want to see. I will correct that presently. The comments sections are much more pleasant when one can pre-filter the garbage and avoid senseless inanities.

Um, my point is that his view is overly simplistic. Two of many sub-points

1) There are many factors contributing to an increase in terrorism against the U.S. I could list quite a few and I'm sure you or he could do likewise if you had open minds.

Nobody has denied this.

Quote:

2) U.S. defending its interests is certainly one of these. However, when one pushes back, one can expect an aggressive response. That is no reason NOT to press one's interests.

Again, nobody has denied this.

Quote:

3) Islamic terrorism has increased, in general.

As compared to what? Do you have numbers for this? Also, have they increased as a whole(expected, larger population size), against terrorism in general, or related to other forms of religious violence? Furthermore have they really increased or has your perception of it changed since the US has become an increased target of such terrorism where before they more actively targetted the Soviet Union and China?

Personally I think there likely is a increase in Islamic terrorism, however I am not convinced that it outpaces terrorism from other religions, especially Christianity which gave us yet another demonstration two days ago of its destructive power.

Quote:

4) These people have certain long-term goals. They don't change because of what the U.S. does, only the short-term goals and tactics do.

You are asserting this based on what? If the US was not propping up the Saudi regieme do you truly think we would be a target of Al Quaeda? I ask because that is explicitly what Osama bin Laden repeatedly claimed to be against us for...

Quote:

5) No matter who you are, if you get in their way they're going to react violently. It doesn't matter if you're a world power, a peaceful rival Islamic sect, or a defenseless church.

True in general. However many other first world nations with economies rivalling our own(adjusted for population) manage to avoid many of these terrorists. Perhaps there is somethign to learn from them?

Quote:

So, what was his point? It sounded like the U.S. pursing its interests in the world precipitated an increase in Islamofascist terrorism and by implication if only the U.S. were to change its ways we could avoid all that. Well, yeah, I agree that when one pushes back against one's enemies they won't like it and will act out. But the next implication seems to be that if U.S. didn't push back everything would, mostly, be OK. Which I emphatically do not agree with.

Perhaps we should choose our enemies more wisely, eh? Our situation is one entirely created by our decisions, their decisions, and reactions to each other's decisions. We control half of that equation. As I pointed out, we made direct decisions that put ourselves in the line of fire, decisions we did not have to make and that others have chosen not to make.

Quote:

BTW, I had forgot to put you on my the list of people whose posts I don't want to see. I will correct that presently. The comments sections are much more pleasant when one can pre-filter the garbage and avoid senseless inanities.

Well as long as we aren't getting all ad hom or anything. Enjoy your private forum!

True in general. However many other first world nations with economies rivalling our own(adjusted for population) manage to avoid many of these terrorists. Perhaps there is somethign to learn from them?

True in general. However many other first world nations with economies rivalling our own(adjusted for population) manage to avoid many of these terrorists. Perhaps there is somethign to learn from them?

Like Spain?

I was thinking more like Japan, actually. Their terrorists tend to be domestic.

In re my post above, this is a case that smacks of why a "Second Life" feed of data would be beneficial. Imagine a "Third Life" based upon a "Second Life" except that in a "Third Life" one communicates with others via "chats" which are the equivalents of actual chats or phone calls. In addition, one could interact with others with the equivalents of "virtual Twitters" and "virtual Facebooks" coupled with "virtual forums." If one carried a "virtual cellphone", one could be "tracked" just as in the real world.

In other words, if the agencies in question cannot readily provide classified data to assist in an effort to provide an open-source "leap frog" solution, then a source of fake data would need to be generated in a similar manner to that generated in the "real world."

Motivate the participants in both good and evil ways. Let there be "netizens" in the "Third Life" that are normal folks, some that are criminals, and some that are law enforcement. Stage some contests with goals in mind that would force interaction between the three groups. Bribery, corruption, criminality, terrorism, heroics, sleuthing, entrepreneurship, transport, housing and the likes, all in a "virtual" setting that is small, medium, large, or even global in scale.

Given a significant source of fake or virtual data roughly resembling that in the real world, coupled with open-source development and the insane improvements in end-user interfaces as manifested by tablets and phones, an awesome system beneficial to all should be possible.

In all likelihood one cannot be a prophet in one's hometown. I suspect that my own "hometown", that is the United States, will not likely even attempt to implement the aforementioned ideas. However, in a predictable twist of irony, I'll bet that governments like China will attempt to do so. As they co-opted Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave" book, making it the second most read in China, so too will they co-opt ideas like these.

It would be beneficial to all concerned to watch the first eight (8) minutes or so of episode 1 of HBO's "The Newsroom" to understand my frustrations when I proposed ideas such as these, for I can remember when my nation would actually attempt an undertaking such as this.

As unpalatable as his speech was, he was a US citizen. If he committed a crime, the US government had the duty to charge him with that crime, seek his extradition, and provide him with judicial due process.

As it happened, he was targeted by the highest levels of the US government, with Obama's ultimate approval, for premeditated murder. The justification he was an enemy combatant holds no water; he was not in a country where the US is at war, and I have seen no credible accusation he presented a direct 'imminent threat' to the US. If he can be labeled an enemy combatant, targeted for assassination, and ultimately deprived of his life without the judicial due process guaranteed by the Constitution, any of us can be. Indeed, the Executive has allocated to itself the positions of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. That is a true 'imminent threat' to the US.

Make no mistake: Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Holder, Alexander, and Rice conspired, and succeeded, to commit premeditated murder of a US citizen in direct violation of the supreme law of the land. Yet, justice and the rule of law, that supreme guiding principle of our nation's founding, is nowhere to be found. Until those in power who systematically violate the law are held accountable for their serious crimes, our country has no hope to reclaim our rightful place as the leader of the free world.